A neuroscientist explains how — and why — to get inside your political enemies’ minds

With the 2024 U.S. presidential election approaching, and our nation deeply divided, understanding the psychological differences between conservatives and liberals is more important than ever.

But why?

One reason is strategic. In Sun Tzu’s The Art of War, the ancient strategist advises, “Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never be in peril.” If we want to gain an advantage over our ideological opponents, we must understand how they think. We must also understand how we think. Given all that we know now about the brain and the mind, such an understanding could lead to strategic advantages in political campaigns or ideological debates.

Another reason: Once the president is elected, we must try to unify America, as difficult as that might sound. Understanding the psychology of those you disagree with will allow you to see why they believe what they do. Once you understand how they think, it becomes easier to let go of anger or resentment toward them, since they are products of their genetics and environment, as are we all.

The reason we may find it so hard to get along, especially in times of uncertainty and polarization, is because conservatives and liberals seem to be perceiving and reacting to the world according to two very different states of cognition and consciousness.

ALSO READ: Selling hate, vulgarity and violence: How Trump and MAGA overran a quaint Midwest festival

“Dual process” theories, which have been influential in psychology, cognitive neuroscience and behavioral economics, propose that human thinking can be characterized by two distinct systems or modes of processing. One mode is the default state that corresponds to our automatic responses, while the other mode is a conscious controller that can override our automatic mode when it detects the need to do so.

These two modes have been popularized by the Nobel Prize-winning psychologist Daniel Kahneman, most notably in his book Thinking Fast and Slow, where the two modes are called System 1 and 2, which correspond to “fast” and “slow” thinking.

These systems have also been called Mind 1 and Mind 2, and each of us use both minds — just not in equal distribution. Appreciating the distinction between these two minds is the key to understanding the psychological differences between liberals and conservatives.

Mind 1 is the default mind. It operates effortlessly and mostly automatically, requiring little to no conscious effort. This system has been shaped by countless generations of survival needs, so evolution has sculpted it for rapid threat detection and response. Since the automatic system doesn’t require much mental effort, it doesn’t drain cognitive resources. So, if one prefers not to think too hard, Mind 1 is the way to go. That’s not to say Mind 1 isn’t intelligent — it just relies on intuition and heuristics (mental shortcuts) to arrive at conclusions.

ALSO READ:Why aren't corrupt lawmakers denied their pensions? Here's who to blame.

This system is strongly influenced by our emotions, and is triggered when the amygdala is activated after a threat is perceived. Since Mind 1 processing doesn’t involve conscious deliberation or reflection, the automatic behavior generated by a particular sensory input is determined by one’s survival instincts, but also one’s cultural worldview, or belief system.

So, essentially when Mind 1 is in the driver’s chair, you’re responding according to your emotions and biases. It’s reacting “on the fly,” rather than deliberating and reflecting on the situation. Mind 1 would correspond to the instinctive strategies employed when there's no time to deliberate and immediate reaction is paramount.

In contrast to the reflexive nature of Mind 1, Mind 2 operates with conscious, intentional and reflective thought. Through logical examination and inductive reasoning, it evaluates situations, ponders implications, plans and generates insights. A quintessential feature of Mind 2 is its forward-looking capability. It’s not just about the now, but also about the “what could be.”

Using the “slow” system is costly in terms of mental resources. But the potential payoff of engaging in deeper cognitive processing is great. Mind 2 does not just react; it analyzes the options and weighs the outcomes associated with different choices before executing a decision and behavior.

ALSO READ: Accused felon Rudy Giuliani praises The Citadel for letting him keep honorary degree

Unlike the instinctive and heuristic-driven decisions of Mind 1, Mind 2 is characterized by its commitment to rigorous analysis. It urges us to consider the long-term consequences of our actions. It is this process of consideration that gives us agency and choice, so you can think of Mind 1 as the determined mind and Mind 2 as the mind associated with what we refer to as “free will.”

Understanding Mind 1 and Mind 2 does more than just satisfy academic curiosity; it provides a framework for deciphering the psychological underpinnings that differentiate liberal from conservative thinking styles. While it is overly simplistic to pigeonhole all conservatives or liberals into one mode of thought or another, clear trends do emerge in controlled studies.

Conservatives, with their preference for tradition and an aversion to risk, find a natural ally in Mind 1. This mode of thought is favored for its efficiency in making swift judgments, which is advantageous in situations where quick decisions are necessary and the stakes are tied to preserving established structures. The inclinations of Mind 1 can often align with conservative ideologies, which tend to emphasize tradition, stability and a preference for the status quo.

Multiple studies have indicated that conservatives exhibit a sensitivity to threat, as demonstrated by an attentional bias for threatening images, and a heightened amygdala response. The amygdala, an almond-shaped structure in the brain’s temporal lobe, is associated with processing emotions, especially fear. This means that conservatives are biologically more attuned to threats. This often results in a predominant Mind 1 state, characterized by rapid, automatic and intuitive reactions.

ALSO READ: Caught: Republican congressional recruit violates financial law

The activation of the amygdala, the brain's "threat detector," can instantly shift someone’s cognitive operating mode from Mind 2 to Mind 1. When exposed to stimuli perceived as threats — be it an angry expression or a cutting remark — the amygdala rapidly processes this information and prepares the body for a potential “fight or flight” response.

This automatic reaction has been called "amygdala hijack,” capturing the essence of how our fear center can momentarily commandeer our behavioral control. Whether the perceived threat is physical or ideological, the activation of the amygdala ushers us into a defensive mode, marked by heightened tribalism and strict adherence to familiar worldviews.

When there is existential threat looming, such as a pandemic or terror attack, conservatives are more likely to shift into a “locked in” Mind 1 state that is resistant to override attempts by the regulatory Mind 2.

When this happens over time on a large scale, we see nationalist movements emerge that are intolerant of dissimilar others and notions of change. We can observe this general mindset right now, and it is particularly salient, since we as a nation of people are so divided while parts of the world are in chaos.

POLL: Should Trump be allowed to run for office?

Liberals, on the other hand, are typically more open to new experiences and ideas, according to a 2008 study. This necessitates a more flexible and scrutinizing thought process. This also dovetails with the characteristics of Mind 2, which involves a conscious effort to process information in a critical and systematic manner, considering long-term implications and the broader picture rather than relying on instinct. This mode of thinking supports a progressive's approach to problem-solving and policy-making, which often involves weighing a diverse array of perspectives and projecting the potential ripple effects of decisions into the future. Of course, not all politicians who label themselves a “progressive” actually practice these principles, so we should keep that in mind.

It might sound like Mind 2 is the superior mode of cognitive processing, but that would be an oversimplification. Mind 1 can sometimes detect things to which the conscious mind is blind. For example, when “something seems off," it is because Mind 1 has detected a disruption in a normal behavioral pattern that indicates a suspicious character or situation. “Trusting your gut” means trusting the preprogrammed mind that is sculpted by evolution.

But, generally speaking, it is better if an agent exercises Mind 2 whenever there is a difficult decision with a lot at stake — especially if it involves long-term consequences and a potential ethical component. While Mind 1 generates automatic responses according to emotions and stereotypes, Mind 2 can critically evaluate and potentially override these biases.

Unfortunately, because it demands more cognitive resources, Mind 2 is not engaged as often by those who don’t value being reflective and analytical, and this is the source of many of the world’s problems. Encouraging “slow thinking” should be a mission for psychologists and educators in divided times such as these.

It is also worth emphasizing that at the current chaotic moment, liberals are also feeling extremely fearful. This means that “amygdala hijack” similarly affects progressives, shifting them into a Mind 1 state that leads to tribal tendencies and strict adherence to one’s worldview. In divided times, even a progressive ideology can become dogmatic if we aren’t careful.

As election fervor grips the nation, understanding these innate brain differences becomes paramount. With the threat of another Donald Trump presidency, we must think strategically, with psychology in mind. We must also consider how to leverage this information to disrupt the intensifying cycle of political polarization, which threatens to deepen legislative gridlock in Washington and risks sparking conflict and violence in the streets following the election results.

Understanding the psychological differences that are being uncovered by new research coming out of the brain and mind sciences is not just about winning an election — it's about securing the future stability of our nation, and fostering a more empathetic state of mind that is conducive to unity and alignment.

Bobby Azarian is a cognitive neuroscientist and the author of the book The Romance of Reality: How the Universe Organizes Itself to Create Life, Consciousness, and Cosmic Complexity. He is also a blogger for Psychology Today and the creator of the Substack Road to Omega. Follow him on X and Instagram @BobbyAzarian.